General Information
The case revolves around the success of Purdue Pharmaceutical company owned by the Sackler family. OxyContin is the opioid painkiller that was promoted as one of the best ways to alleviate and manage pain in patients with chronic and complicated conditions. Due to the extremely aggressive promotional campaign, the company managed to generate up to $1.1 billion in sales by 2000 (Glazek, 2017). During the next decade, the income increased and constituted $3.1 billion, which evidences the growth in the number of patients using this medicine (Glazek, 2017). To a greater degree, a significant success of the drug can also be associated with the high number of sales representatives (about 1,000 in 2010) and the involvement of doctors in promotional campaigns (Mariani, 2015). The company provided rewards for so-called “whales,” or health workers, who managed to prescribe OxyContin to the bigger number of patients and, in such a way, contribute to the increase in revenues of the firm (Axelrod, 2018). The employment of this strategy helped the Sackler family generate a high income.
However, Purdue Pharmaceutical concealed extremely important information about proposed pills and the existence of severe adverse effects such as the development of addiction to opioids that can be found in OxyContin. The problem became extremely important regarding the opioid epidemic that affects the USA as an average 115 of citizens die from overdoses in the period from 1999 to 2016 (Keefe, 2017). The existence of the given problematic issue triggered vigorous debates in the society as the majority of patients who have the experience of using OxyContin outline the presence of multiple problems, and the development of addiction is one of them (Keefe, 2017). It resulted in the appearance of many claims about the provision of false information to doctors and patients to hide the existence of negative effects and increase sales. Purdue had to pay about $600 million to cover damage; however, there are still multiple issues, and patients dissatisfied with the provided medicine (Axelrod, 2018). In such a way, the aggressive promotional campaign and the attempt to disregard adverse effects contributed to the rise in OxyContin’s sales and the development of opioid epidemics.
Legal Issues
The complexity of the situation and the harm done to the health of the nation by actions of Purdue Pharmaceutical mean that there are multiple legal issues confronting the Sackler family. However, it is critical to provide an appropriate punishment to guarantee that no similar cases will emerge in the future, and other companies will not employ the same approach. For this reason, there is a criminal investigation that might presuppose imprisonment and some other penalties for the members of the family, apart from financial ones. The criminal responsibility can be linked to the fact that possessing a clear understanding of the potential harm that can be done to patients, the family purposively concealed complete information about the drug to benefit from sales (De Sakutin, 2019). In such a case, they might be found guilty and provided with appropriate punishment.
The second legal issue can be linked to the conflict of interests. The fact is that trying to restore the image of the brand and avoid the further reputational losses and associations with the opioid epidemic, Purdue tried to buy influence and some support from Tufts University School of Medicine (Symons & Clementi, 2019). Investigations show that the unit might also have links with the Sackler family, which means that there is an example of unethical actions and attempts to avoid future claims in unethical and illegal ways.
Finally, the third legal issue is linked to the need for the compensation of harm done to patients using the medicine and to the manipulation with the information related to OxyContin. The extremely aggressive promotional campaign presupposing the broad involvement of health workers and the emphasis on the use of the drug resulted in the increased number of dangerous and sometimes unnecessary prescriptions as previously doctors were more careful when using opiates to alleviate pain (Keefe, 2017). In such a way, a significant number of patients started to suffer from addiction and experienced deterioration of their states. For this reason, the Sackler family should be responsible for compensations and the overall worsening of the situation related to this aspect.
Ethical Issues
The described case also presupposes the existence of several ethical concerns that should be considered when discussing Purdue’s actions. First of all, the company violated the code of ethics accepted in the modern business world. Trying to generate extra income and guarantee stable revenue, Purdue wanted to conceal the vital information about the drug and promoted its safe nature. Because of the existing fears regarding the impact of opiates on patients and the high risk of the development of addiction, the company emphasized the benefits of the medicine, such as prolonged effect, and cooperated with health workers encouraging them to prescribe OxyContin and popularizing its among clients, which resulted in the development of epidemics.
Another ethical issue is linked to dishonest and immoral actions related to customers. The adverse effects of OxyContin presuppose the development of addiction, deterioration of the overall state, and even death (Keefe, 2017). However, regardless of these facts, the company continued to promote the good as it was considered a good way to generate income and make clients invest in the further evolution of the company (Groopman, 2017). In such a way, the firm violated the basic ethical rules that emphasize the need to care for people, their health, and other basic demands. The aggressive promotion resulted in the involvement of multiple clients in the process and the development of the opioid epidemic, which is now one of the primary concerns of the state.
Finally, the company also managed to corrupt the image of multiple doctors who were involved in the promotional campaign and had to prescribe OxyContin to patients. The approach to popularize the drug presupposed the existence of many sales agents and, at the same time, the employment of health workers to recommend patients with the discussed pills. In such a way, doctors also contributed to the deterioration of the situation and the development of poor outcomes. They were also provided with incomplete information or provided with benefits regarding the number of sold items, which contributed to the appearance of private interest and disregard of existing ethical issues. In such a way, it is possible to conclude that Purdue’s actions were unfair and dishonest as they cultivated poor outcomes.
Social Responsibilities
Finally, every business has several social responsibilities that are vital for the absence of problematic issues in the future and the cultivation of clients’ satisfaction. As for the case, Purdue Pharmaceutical company did not provide complete information about all possible effects of using OxyContin and the development of addiction (Holcombe & Frehse, 2019). It resulted in the critical deterioration of the situation and the appearance of multiple patients suffering from different undesired states triggered by the use of medicine. It contradicts the ideas of business social responsibility and results in the critical deterioration of the image of the brand.
The second issue is related to the aggressive promotion campaign that was used by Purdue Pharmaceutical to guarantee high sales of the product. Fair and honest advertising is one of the elements of business responsibility; however, the company decided to use doctors to popularize the drug. The given approach cannot be considered fair because of several reasons. First of all, because of the financial rewards for the high number of sold items, health workers had their personal interest in promoting the drug, which also preconditioned the conflict of interests (Glazek, 2017). Second, trusting their caregivers, patients were not able to disregard their recommendations and avoid using OxyContin, which resulted in the emergence of a serious problem.
Finally, the company disregarded the idea of product quality and safety. The duration of the effect and its ability to alleviate pain were considered the basic advantages of the promoted drug. However, Purdue did not devote much attention to the existence of adverse effects and the development of addiction, which was a serious violation of the business ethics and ideas of social responsibility. In such a way, the existence of these aspects proves the idea that Purdue Pharmaceutics acted unethically and also disregarded the concept of business social responsibility, which created the basis for the critical deterioration of the health of the nation.
References
Axelrod, J. (2018). Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin, backs off aggressive marketing amid lawsuits. CBS News.
De Sakutin, S. (2019). The case for prosecuting the Sacklers and other opioid executives. Vox.
Glazek, K. (2017). The secretive family making billions from the opioid crisis. Esquire.
Groopman, J. (2017). What’s missing from the national discussion about the opioid epidemic. The New Yorker.
Holcombe, M., & Frehse, R. (2019). The Sackler family withdrew more than $10 billion from Purdue Pharma during the country’s opioid crisis. CNN.
Keefe, P. (2017). The family that built an empire of pain. The New Yorker.
Mariani, M. (2015). How the American opiate epidemic was started by one pharmaceutical company. The Week. Web.
Symons, C., & Clementi, A. (2019). Report reveals loose conflict-of-interest policies, deference to donors benefitted Purdue Pharma. The Tufts Daily.